It has taken less than 10 years to pry open the can of worms enshrouding the pathetic 9/11 scam. The central role of the major newsmedia corporations to pull off this sordid "terror" simulation has now been comprehensively exposed. Before joining this forum, please get familiar with the research at: http://www.septemberclues.info

We must assume that if a jammer were used, such as an Israeli-style electro-magnetic weapon or a HERF, then they would have to include it in the official story in some way - similar to how they had witnesses saying they saw a "small plane" if a JDAM missile were used instead of the far more ridiculous idea of a Boeing 767.

Perhaps the "woops, we have TV problems" was their way of endorsing the EM weapon on the sly, while also being able to blame the tower collapse.

It's all speculation but since we don't have any manual shutter release photos from that day, maybe they had more assurance of their plan than we think.

For instance, if electronic jamming were used in addition to spy satellites, they could conceivably photograph from the sky anyone with a clear view and use their resources to look up who that person is.

If they can trace people who don't want to be traced, they can certainly trace people who don't know or suspect they're being traced at all. Someone might be assigned to sneak into their home and steal their photos, even if it was a private, non-electronic camera.

Of utmost importance to the perps in their crime (which may have had no deaths) would be prevention of exposure of any real evidence. Since breaking and entering could be easy for the FBI or something like that, perhaps they just traced everyone on the street, found where they lived and took the evidence.

Interesting, so airplanes are the only thing with high enough picture quality?

That means they would have to have flying cameras that didn't draw attention. Could the real events in New York on that day - whatever those were - have significantly distracted from spy planes? How good is cloaking?

Description:A right front view of an E-4 advanced airborne command post (AABNCP) on the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) simulator for the testing.Location: KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, NEW MEXICO (NM) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (USA)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:E-4_a ... MP_sim.jpg

Electronic attack (EA) or electronic countermeasures (ECM) involves the use of the electromagnetic energy, or anti-radiation weapons to attack personnel, facilities, or equipment with the intent of degrading, neutralizing, or destroying enemy combat capability and is considered a form of fires (see Joint Publication [JP] 3-09, Joint Fire Support). EA operations can be detected by an adversary due to their active transmissions. Many modern EA techniques are considered to be highly classified.

In other words, I don't think we have the means to know exactly what sort of devices were used to jam the electronics on 9/11 - since it is highly classified technology. Nonetheless, it is undeniably an intensely pursued area of of the most advanced modern warfare R&D. To say (as I've heard some people say) that "it would have been impossible to neutralize given frequencies over a large area of Manhattan" is frankly disingenuous : it's like pretending that we - the public - are privvy to such top-secret military technology.

I stand by my belief that ECM (electronic counter measures) were employed to ensure no video cameras would function during the crucial time-windows of 9/11. As for analog cameras, I remember that even the low radiation of airport security scanners used to be a photographer's nightmare - as they sometimes magnetized and destroyed film rolls carried in the luggage.

Were the ECM devices airborne, perhaps by an E-4 Jumbo such as the one depicted above? Were they deployed by mobile units such as the one below? Who's to know? In any case, I don't think anyone can rule out the capability of the US military to achieve such (temporary, selective and non-destructive) electronic jamming.

I agree with the EMP stuff. Knowing their need to keep real photos away from public disclosure, I am sure they had a method of either disabling manual cameras - even disposable ones - or like trace people down. It doesn't make sense to let the manuals run wild while the more manipulatable digital stuff went free.

I don't think it's unbelievable. I think it's just a possible weapon/technology/security system we don't understand.

According to some documentaries, I think its also mentioned in September Clues, cellphones and cameras did not work on 9/11.I'm not talking about the phone calls from the airplanes, but about all the phones and cameras in NY.

After a little research I haven't found anything about that.

So, can anyone of you please give me a hint and tell me why this would be the case?Well, I can imagine that the communication networks would break because so many people would try to call someone, but this wouldnt cause my cellphone nor my camera to crash.

As stated in September Clues, and actually I believe it's true, there is no real "amateur" footage.

But how could the media fake factory be sure that noone will publish footage that would expose them?

1. The size of the total body of witnesses is exaggerated unrealistically; by outnumbering a plausible number of video witnesses - 5 for instance, if that - with dozens upon dozens, the mind calls for "replacement" witnesses when the dozens are discovered to be fakes. In reality, there would not be dozens upon dozens in 2001 and definitely not producing such identical copies/crops/recrops of one another. Simply the number of video witnesses is one of the biggest lies.

It is a false set up like news reporters saying, "we don't know what's going on with all those people inside the WTC" - your mind is immediately occupied with "what's happening to them" instead of recognizing that "them" has been slipped into your consciousness. In fact, we don't know if anyone was inside and most likely there wasn't unless there are unreported deaths. The supposed victims of 9/11 appear to have completely fabricated deaths let alone pre-death existences.

Think about something like 9/11 that happened in America before. Can you? What kind of event like 9/11 do you have to compare it to? Nothing. Therefore, you have no idea if there actually would be the amount of witnesses you imagine there would be.

2. The existence of EMP technology. Israel military has used EMP against Arabic peoples long before 9/11 and the military has been developing disruptive "clean" warfare since at least the 60's when they realized they had to beat something they called "the Vietnam syndrome" - which meant their personal reaction to their own realization that there has been a significant worldwide peace movement for centuries - if not throughout human history and hidden from the plebs to make us think war is essential and good.

regex wrote:According to some documentaries, I think its also mentioned in September Clues, cellphones and cameras did not work on 9/11.I'm not talking about the phone calls from the airplanes, but about all the phones and cameras in NY.

After a little research I haven't found anything about that.

If you just search for "cellphone network manhattan September 11 " you'll find lots of articles related to the cellphone network blackout. Whether those reports are credible or not, one cannot deny that there are countless accounts to be found about people not being able to dial/connect with their cellphones. So what to make of it? http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Commun ... 01_attacks

Other electronic disfunctions of the day have been extensively reported/ and even been hotly debated in various 'truther' forums. They just don't attract much attention - and understandably so : who the heck cares about it?

However, a plethora of strange disruptions occured that morning - if you are to believe the MainStream Media. Now, you'll ask me: "why would the MSM report such things if they were in on it?" In my humble opinion, they had to spread these electronic disruption rumors because they actually occured. So, in order to put people's minds at rest about it, this was widely reported to provide a plausible 'alibi' to the fact.

As for my speculation that HERF/EMP technology was used (with the main purpose of disabling electronic circuitries of video equipments), I still hold onto it. Someone (on this forum) has called this a 'stupid' assertion. However, consider this: would it not be just as 'stupid' for the Pentagon NOT to employ such appropriate counter-measures developed with millions of dollars of taxpayers' monies over the last decades? I think we can reasonably allow that this technology exists - and that it would have ensured the required 100% 'safety measure' for the 9/11 operation which, as we now know, was foremostly based on fake imagery.

Well, I don't know how many witnesses there were on 9/11 that were able to see the towers + the flightpath of the second "plane".Eventhough I also think that numbers of witnesses that the media told us is way too high, I can't believe that the fake factory would risk it, to be exposed.

There are plenty hobby photographers in NY, I guess. What if just one would have taken a more or less good shot showing something else than a plane or even just nothing. (Ye I know some of the live footage also doesnt show anything, but thats another story)

About the EMP: Well, ye this technology might exist, still there's no proof that it was used on 9/11. What is missing here is the smoking gun just like 10 people claiming that they were filming on 9/11 and at the moment of the "second impact" their cameras were just screwed up.

@simon:I understand your point that the pentagon would of course use such technology if needed, but still I can't see any concrete evidence. So I'm still not so much into these EMP speculations

regex wrote:I can't believe that the fake factory would risk it, to be exposed....About the EMP: Well, ye this technology might exist, still there's no proof that it was used on 9/11. What is missing here is the smoking gun just like 10 people claiming that they were filming on 9/11 and at the moment of the "second impact" their cameras were just screwed up.

@simon:I understand your point that the pentagon would of course use such technology if needed, but still I can't see any concrete evidence. So I'm still not so much into these EMP speculations

This has no place here. Vague musings, vague speculations, just waste everyone's time.

You don't like one of this forums' foundational theories/conclusions? Post objective evidence likely to convince the neutral reader. Otherwise, take your boring, unsupported, amorphous doubts elsewhere, please. And stop using smilies that are emotionally inconsistent with the preceding sentence.

By the way, there are many reports of folks whose cameras just 'happened' to fail at the time of the 'attacks'. You might make a little bit of a research effort before burdening us with this word salad.

This has no place here. Vague musings, vague speculations, just waste everyone's time.

You don't like one of this forums' foundational theories/conclusions? Post objective evidence likely to convince the neutral reader. Otherwise, take your boring, unsupported, amorphous doubts elsewhere, please. And stop using smilies that are emotionally inconsistent with the preceding sentence.

By the way, there are many reports of folks whose cameras just 'happened' to fail at the time of the 'attacks'. You might make a little bit of a research effort before burdening us with this word salad.

I actually said that I am NOT into speculations. So bring any proof that EMP has been used or this kind of speculation is just total crap.After all I am not saying that EMP has been used on that day, so why would I want to bring you any proof? I'm not pretending to give you facts, I just want to get answers.

I'm interested in most of simon's theories, I won't tell you now in which since THIS would be waste of time but if my help is not apprectiated, just give me a sign. My doubts, as you call them, are just questions about HOW cellphones and cameras didn't work that day. I didn't get any answer so far, except the EMP speculations.

Can you support any links to that specific "folks" that claim that their cameras didn't work, their phone numbers, email, adress, name? If not, this is just pure speculation again. So, can you please?You want me to make some further research, but certainly you don't know how to actually make a research:Providing some facts is one thing, providing background information the other.

I just watched september clues once again and theres just "It's a fact that cellphones didn't work that day". Well, yea it's likely that communication networks just broke because of an overflow, but cameras? Wheres the proof?

I just watched september clues once again and theres just "It's a fact that cellphones didn't work that day". Well, yea it's likely that communication networks just broke because of an overflow, but cameras? Wheres the proof?

This type of technology definitely exists.A couple of years ago there was a news story about residents living close to a local prison who were complaining about their cell phones being jammed, because the authorities at the nearby prison were activating this technology to prevent the inmates from using smuggled in cell phones.

antipodean wrote:This type of technology definately exists.A couple of years ago there was a news story about residents living close to a local prison who were complaining about their cell phones being jammed, because the authorities at the nearby prison were activating this technology to prevent the inmates from using smuggled in cell phones.

Well I'm not discussing the existance of this technology. I just would like to see any proof that this technology has been used in the moment, or a few seconds before, the second explosion.

If we shall discuss the Hypothesis that some kind of electromagnetic field was a part of the cover-up, and we do so slowly and in detail, we will quickly reach a consensus on this. Also consider that the typical cameras can still be obtained and tested, so a field strength can be translated into power consumption and effective range. A component is if we shall assume a continuous signal field, or a short strong pulse. If you prefer a pulse, note that already recorded video (on magnetic tape) might survive even if you "shoot dead" the camera. And if you don't "kill" the camera, it might drop a frame and then run just fine. If you are unlucky!

The "stupid" part is to consider that an electric field can "kill" all video cameras, at long range such as on the other side of the Hudson river, and not "kill", disrupt, or damage other equipment, typically with attached antennas (car radio, Building TV network) that would be minimum 10,000 x more sensitive.

So, to discuss an Hypothesis, if you consider short-range, including that all and everything electrical might go dead completely within range, than it might work. My personal opinion, and this is also a hypothesis or better a speculation, are there is no thing as "the second hit", you simply start/continue from 9:03 using only smoke. There are many alternatives here, and if we all help, we will soon limit the range and scope.

The puzzling fact, that no credible picture material have surfaced, is important and needs to be investigated.

antipodean wrote: This type of technology definitely exists. A couple of years ago there was a news story about residents living close to a local prison who were complaining about their cell phones being jammed, because the authorities at the nearby prison were activating this technology to prevent the inmates from using smuggled in cell phones.

This is absolutely true, and you can buy the transmitter commercially. What you do is that you ask the cell-phone to connect to a phony base station, that have no connection to back-end phone grid. An alternative would be to jam the cell phone input-frequency, so it cannot hear the signal from a legitimate base station. A more humoristic solution would be to arrange so the cell-phones only connect to the prison guard. In that case you can also allow visitors and prison guards restricted access to the phone grid.

A video camera do not have any antenna. The typical video camera also lack any attachment cable, that could receive the military electromagnetic field or pulse, and inject it into the camera.